Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[paxmao]

For now, it's enough that the Finnish government lost the election and resigned.

Don'y worry, with new government Finland's views towards Russia and support to Ukraine won't change.

I think you are wishful thinking.

Nuclear weapons will not enter Finnish territory even after membership is implemented.

Where did he mentioned nuclear weapons?

Well, I gave a link, it seems in the second paragraph the passage about nuclear weapons.

Not all missiles are nuclear.

What do you want me to say? That Finns are generally more adequate than Ukrainians? Or that a big war in Europe is inevitable and it's only a matter of time, and Finland's entry into NATO is another step in Europe into the abyss? You don't think that everything will end in Ukraine, do you?

It depends on the Russians' willingness to fight in foreign lands.

If I had to guess, Putin will continue this until he dies, is killed or his army is completely decimated.

Even if Putinians lose, they will not stop. They are like mad animals, they have to be stopped.

So I am guessing this thing will end in Kremlin, with Moscovian Empire disintegrating.

There is another option, and it seems a likely option: Until the RF can no longer produce the volume of weaponry and supplies that this war requires. The numbers are really big, and it is not only about the soldiers dying for nothing, it is also about the shells, drones and, believe it or not, tanks that are being lost.

Incredible as it seems, the RF may actually run out of tanks, but even earlier of missiles and, and this is critical, of artillery supplies.

[1714549076]

1714549076

[1714549076]

1714549076

[1714549076]

1714549076

[1714549076]

1714549076

[LTU_btc]

which immediately redeployed Topol-M mobile complexes to Vyborg. Well, good luck.

And now tell that NATO escalates conflict not Russia. There no talk that nuclear weapons can be deployed in Finland or Poland and now Russia first deploy it to the border with NATO. BTW, if they want to fear out Finland, it really makes much sense to deploy intercontinental missiles there.

Incredible as it seems, the RF may actually run out of tanks, but even earlier of missiles and, and this is critical, of artillery supplies.

Missiles, yeah, it's not endless thing and considering that they don't make such massive attacks against Ukraine like they used before may be indicator that they can't produce it enough. But tanks, it won't end anytime soon. Recently they took out T-54/55 from storages (post WW2 tanks). Estimated numbers that they had 500-600 such tanks in reserve and storages. What's next? T-44 and T-34?

[TwitchySeal]

When NATO missiles appear on the territory of Finland, then they will start talking. For now, it's enough that the Finnish government lost the election and resigned.

You clearly have no idea what's going on. So what's your point and are you talking about? How would our elections would have anything to do with this? You really think that our government lead by "kokoomus" would have any different relations with russia then SDP and Sanna Marin? Fuck no. If anything "KOK" is going to be more nationalistic. So you have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, so you're from Finland? Of course, I don’t particularly delve into the ups and downs of the internal political struggle in your country, I’m simply not interested. From the outside, this whole story with joining NATO looks like Finland was thrown hard through the dick. Moreover, Sweden prudently moved off the topic, with the help of some ridiculous actions to burn the Koran. And Finland suddenly found itself at the forefront of the universal struggle for democracy and other pederastic values against the huge and terrible Russia, which immediately redeployed Topol-M mobile complexes to Vyborg. Well, good luck.

I wonder why they're invading Ukraine so slowly?

I have repeatedly said that time in this story works for Russia, it is strange that you yourself have not understood this yet.

Here's what you said 52 weeks ago:

When will this way end?

I think that the current phase of the operation will continue for another 3-4 weeks and will end with the complete defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donbass. May 9, the day of victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, is a very important holiday for Russia, and the plans of the General Staff are probably synchronized with this date in order to provide the Russian people with sufficient evidence of the success of the operation, for example, the complete liberation of Donbass. The further course of events will depend on many circumstances, Russia has a multi-way and very flexible strategy. I estimate the probability of concluding a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia during April as very low, close to zero.

[suchmoon]

Missiles, yeah, it's not endless thing and considering that they don't make such massive attacks against Ukraine like they used before may be indicator that they can't produce it enough. But tanks, it won't end anytime soon. Recently they took out T-54/55 from storages (post WW2 tanks). Estimated numbers that they had 500-600 such tanks in reserve and storages. What's next? T-44 and T-34?

Tanks may not disappear entirely (they do make a hundred or so T90s a year), but there is already a significant shortage even with the T62s and T55s being unpickled. First Ukrainian sources started reporting a few months ago that Russians are creating entire infantry battalions equipped mostly with transports (often not even armored vehicles but crap like "buhanka") and throwing those at the front line. Basically "meat". Now even Russian "voyenkors" are whining about it so it's mostly likely true.

Then you have tactical geniuses like the one who decided to attack Vuhledar and they lose half of their annual tank production in one battle.

[TwitchySeal]

I think Russia has no reason to take Bakhmut...why chase enemy when other side is readily bringing new soldiers for
easy kill

Have you taken a look at the map? What can you see in the vicinity of Bakhmut? Elevated positions with cover of rocks, trees, hills, river banks? Do you see anything in there that looks like a good attacking position? No, you do not, it is exactly the opposite - You will see a nightmare for the attacker, were they are detected klicks away from the defending positions. Would you like to be the attacker there Branko?

Can't people just google before saying something silly?

The only reason to attack it is because it is the Donbas and the RF needs to take the Donbas to be able to sell some short of "victory" to the world. Wagnerites are expendable, people from Dagestan and other satellites of Moscow are spendable.

As I write this post, I am looking at the videos of Ukrainians training in Leopards. They seem veeeery pleased.

Geographically, Bakhmut is located in a lowland, and all the dominant heights around the city have long been controlled by Wagner. I don’t know what political and image dividends Ukraine is trying to extract by continuing to hold the city, but from a purely military point of view, this is madness, comparable to exchanging a bishop for a pawn in a chess game. The sacrifice may be justified if you have a sharp attacking combination play, but now it looks like a rather pathetic attempt to just buy some time to prepare for the mythical counter-offensive to Melitopol to cut the land corridor to the Crimea. It seems that this is the ultimate dream of Ukrainian military strategists.

Oh, the mythical counteroffensive... sure, keep your eyes on Bahkmut, no need to notice the 40 thousand motorised troops being massed in the Zaporilla area. Do not look there, nothing is going to happen in the next 3 weeks. Nothing at all.  An the explosions in Sebastopol were again, RF soldiers smoking by the gas barrels. There is no resistance and no partisans in the zone. Nothing happening.

The drama in this war is getting ridiculous.  It was what like 2 days ago it was looking like Ukraine was going to have to give up on Bakhmut?

Ukrainian forces are ‘not going anywhere,’ Prigozhin says.

Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of Russia’s Wagner militia, said on Thursday that Ukrainian forces were “not going anywhere” and were continuing to fight in Bakhmut, contradicting his previous assertions that the mercenaries he commands were close to taking control of the bitterly contested city in eastern Ukraine.

The Ukrainians “have organized defense inside the city,” Mr. Prigozhin said on his social media channel. “We cannot talk of any offensive yet.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/06/world/russia-ukraine-news#russia-prigozhin-wagner-ukraine-bakhmut

[Branko]

The Ukrainians “have organized defense inside the city,” Mr. Prigozhin said on his social media channel. “We cannot talk of any offensive yet.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/06/world/russia-ukraine-news#russia-prigozhin-wagner-ukraine-bakhmut

Since when you believe what mr Prigozhin says?

[paxmao]

The Ukrainians “have organized defense inside the city,” Mr. Prigozhin said on his social media channel. “We cannot talk of any offensive yet.”

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/06/world/russia-ukraine-news#russia-prigozhin-wagner-ukraine-bakhmut

Since when you believe what mr Prigozhin says?

I recently saw a video of Prygo speaking about the forces of Ukraine, as he believed they were positioned or wanted the world to believe he knew... Information supplied by the enemy is always dis-information. No real exceptions. However, you may infer what they known and do not know because there is a torrent of subtle information in the mis-information about the psychology of the enemy.

RE tanks and supplies, it is not even about the big numbers, but also about the quality. It is not the same to use proper ultra-high-tech components fresh from a Raytheon manufacturing facility than to dis-assemble a North Korean washing machine and fit the engine regulator to the hydraulic system of your T-60 turret. Yes, the T-60 is still a tank, but has no chance against even older ATs not to mention a newer generation tank afresh from Germany or US.

What would you prefer, be the loader of a T-60 in a group of 5 tanks or the gunner of a single Abrams facing them? What if this happens at night?

...

Tanks may not disappear entirely (they do make a hundred or so T90s a year), but there is already a significant shortage even with the T62s and T55s being unpickled. First Ukrainian sources started reporting a few months ago that Russians are creating entire infantry battalions equipped mostly with transports (often not even armored vehicles but crap like "buhanka") and throwing those at the front line. Basically "meat". Now even Russian "voyenkors" are whining about it so it's mostly likely true.

...

I got a pic of one of those battalions training!!

https://youtu.be/EDCidcpaBJo?t=108

[Jamala]

The war won't have happened if the US and some western countries have kept to their promise of not expanding NATO towards Russian borders. And moreover, both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms. Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

[misterrtwisterr]

And now tell that NATO escalates conflict not Russia. There no talk that nuclear weapons can be deployed in Finland or Poland and now Russia first deploy it to the border with NATO. BTW, if they want to fear out Finland, it really makes much sense to deploy intercontinental missiles there.

Deploying nukes to any border is nothing more than sending a political message, considering (all?) countries with nuclear weapons have the ability to stick them to the top of the missile that can fly to any part of the world. Hence the name "intercontinental". To be fair, NATO was formed to secure peace in Europe, countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union. Why would such pact continue not only to exist, but to evolve AND spread eastward to Russia's borders past the Soviet Union collapse? Can you comprehend why Russia doesn't like that?

[suchmoon]

The war won't have happened if the US and some western countries have kept to their promise of not expanding NATO towards Russian borders. And moreover, both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms. Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

Poor Putin being bullied by evil NATO... except instead of standing up to the bully he's trying to beat up his "brother". Russian family values.

To be fair, NATO was formed to secure peace in Europe, countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union. Why would such pact continue not only to exist, but to evolve AND spread eastward to Russia's borders past the Soviet Union collapse?

Because Russia is still a threat as proven comprehensively by this invasion and all the other shit it's done since the collapse of the USSR.

Can you comprehend why Russia doesn't like that?

Because it has a demented wannabe-dictator who wants to rebuild the Soviet empire and NATO is kinda in the way.

[TwitchySeal]

The war won't have happened if the US and some western countries have kept to their promise of not expanding NATO towards Russian borders. And moreover, both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms. Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

The war won't have happened if Russia didn't invade Ukraine.

[BADecker]

The war won't have happened if the US and some western countries have kept to their promise of not expanding NATO towards Russian borders. And moreover, both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms. Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

The war won't have happened if Russia didn't invade Ukraine.

Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if the US hadn't gone back on its agreement to not expand Nato, and if they hadn't pushed Ukraine into harming their own people and some Russians as well.

[coolcoinz]

What would you prefer, be the loader of a T-60 in a group of 5 tanks or the gunner of a single Abrams facing them? What if this happens at night?

The loader of a t-60 is in a hot seat

(...)both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms. Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

I don't think they're brothers anymore. Not after all the atrocities committed by Russians on the Ukrainian soil. It's one thing to invade, but another to shoot fleeing civilians, rape women and children, bomb train stations full of refugees and so on. There's not going to be any love between these countries for decades.

[TwitchySeal]

The war won't have happened if the US and some western countries have kept to their promise of not expanding NATO towards Russian borders. And moreover, both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms. Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

The war won't have happened if Russia didn't invade Ukraine.

Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if the US hadn't gone back on its agreement to not expand Nato, and if they hadn't pushed Ukraine into harming their own people and some Russians as well.

Maybe in BADeckerville.

In the real world that "we won't expand NATO" promise is a fantasy, it doesn't exist.  Just like the whole "tHeY aRe CoMiTtIng GeNocIdE!11!!" bullshit.

[be.open]

The war won't have happened if the US and some western countries have kept to their promise of not expanding NATO towards Russian borders. And moreover, both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms. Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

The war won't have happened if Russia didn't invade Ukraine.

Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if the US hadn't gone back on its agreement to not expand Nato, and if they hadn't pushed Ukraine into harming their own people and some Russians as well.

Maybe in BADeckerville.

In the real world that "we won't expand NATO" promise is a fantasy, it doesn't exist.  Just like the whole "tHeY aRe CoMiTtIng GeNocIdE!11!!" bullshit.

You are mistaken, the promise not to expand NATO to the east is not a fantasy and there is documentary evidence of this.

[BADecker]

The war won't have happened if the US and some western countries have kept to their promise of not expanding NATO towards Russian borders. And moreover, both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms. Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

The war won't have happened if Russia didn't invade Ukraine.

Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if the US hadn't gone back on its agreement to not expand Nato, and if they hadn't pushed Ukraine into harming their own people and some Russians as well.

Maybe in BADeckerville.

In the real world that "we won't expand NATO" promise is a fantasy, it doesn't exist.  Just like the whole "tHeY aRe CoMiTtIng GeNocIdE!11!!" bullshit.

Thanks for this advertising of yours, helping me to advertise, so that people are prompted to seek and find the info that the media is covering up.

[BADecker]

Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if the US hadn't gone back on its agreement to not expand Nato, and if they hadn't pushed Ukraine into harming their own people and some Russians as well.

Maybe in BADeckerville.

In the real world that "we won't expand NATO" promise is a fantasy, it doesn't exist. Just like the whole "tHeY aRe CoMiTtIng GeNocIdE!11!!" bullshit.

You are mistaken, the promise not to expand NATO to the east is not a fantasy and there is documentary evidence of this.

I still haven't figured out if Twitchy is simply ignorant, or if he is a troll, or what his reasons are for ignoring the obvious. Do you have any idea?

[LTU_btc]

And moreover, both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms.

They were brothers until war started. War will end one day, but it's difficult to imagine friendly relationship between these nations in upcoming decades. I imagine that it will be something similar like Azerbaijan and Armenia now.

Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

So, poor little Russia is victim now?

To be fair, NATO was formed to secure peace in Europe, countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union. Why would such pact continue not only to exist, but to evolve AND spread eastward to Russia's borders past the Soviet Union collapse? Can you comprehend why Russia doesn't like that?

Maybe because Russia is direct security threat for these Eastern European countries? Considering behaviour of Russia don't leave an option for them to stay neutral. BTW, when Russia started invasion in Ukraine, they were not even close from joining NATO. And now Finland become full member of NATO and Russia haven't started ''special operation'' against them. It probably indicates that invasion in Ukraine isn't about NATO expansion to the east at all.

[be.open]

I still haven't figured out if Twitchy is simply ignorant, or if he is a troll, or what his reasons are for ignoring the obvious. Do you have any idea?

Of course I have ideas about this. He and a number of other accounts active here are politically biased, heavily influenced by anti-Russian propaganda and forced to express their opinions under conditions of strict censorship, at the risk of falling under the pressure of cancellation culture, and even being subjected to criminal prosecution. It is also possible that they are paid for spreading Russophobic sentiments online. Under such conditions, it is difficult to expect any objectivity from them.

[TwitchySeal]

The war won't have happened if the US and some western countries have kept to their promise of not expanding NATO towards Russian borders. And moreover, both Ukraine and Russia are brothers, just in arms. Russia is simply trying to survive hostile NATO policies.

The war won't have happened if Russia didn't invade Ukraine.

Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if the US hadn't gone back on its agreement to not expand Nato, and if they hadn't pushed Ukraine into harming their own people and some Russians as well.

Maybe in BADeckerville.

In the real world that "we won't expand NATO" promise is a fantasy, it doesn't exist. Just like the whole "tHeY aRe CoMiTtIng GeNocIdE!11!!" bullshit.

You are mistaken, the promise not to expand NATO to the east is not a fantasy and there is documentary evidence of this.

Unless you are speaking as a current resident of BADeckerville or some other make believe land, you are mistaken.  The existence of a document describing what was discussed among non-heads of state during negotiations to establish NATO is not the same thing as what was actually agreed upon by the actual heads of state - which is well documented. 

Don't believe me?  Just ask Gorbachev:

Russia Beyond Journalist: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

Mikhail Gorbachev: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

NATO has